WDYTYA series 4 # 7 Matthew Pinsent

[Siamese Girl]

I think it was the Victorians that made women down trodden     Georgian women were much more emancipated - and it's rubbish all his "everything they had went to their husbands when they married" stuff.

Carole

[LizzieW]

I think the Victorians had a lot to answer for, bigoted, prudish, anti-women, perhaps because they had a female queen, the men had to prove that they were the best at everything else. 

Liz

[julianb]

Do you think ignoring the female side is a male thing? A lot of the most interesting things I've found have come through the female side, girls inherit property too .....

Of course it is easier to follow the male lines, because the surname remains the same.  But for the 19th century, I seem to have done better with some of my female lines. When I started I had better info on the female lines than the male lines.

My theory:  family folklore is taught at your mother's knee, so it is bound to be stronger on the female side.

JULIAN
(No Gateway Ancestors, and not disappointed about it  )

[oldtimer]

I should think that it is only when following the female side that you can be 100% that you have the correct ancestors. What is that saying - "It is a wise man that knows his own father." How many of our male ancestors have brought up another man's baby without knowing?

Just a thought!

[Windsor87]

Edward I only makes it on mine as 23x gt granduncle as I am descended from Edmund Crouchback

I've got Edmund as well. He is my 23xgreat grandfather.

[lizdb]

Often following the male line is just a way of 'containing' the tree, so it doesnt get out of control. i'm talking the sort of tree that stats at the top with one person and then follows all branches downwards, and when you go back a generation you also find the siblings and again follow all branches downwards. Rather than the sort of tree that starts with one name at the bottom (yours) and goes back to parents, grandparents, grt grandparents etc.
The former style of tree needs to concentrate on one surname, otherwise it would be totally unmanageable, and thus only follows the male line, girls once married are not followed up.
I dont see this as a problem. This is what I have done for many years on my Edmonds's. I recognise the girls are just as important genetically. I recognise that their offspring/ancsetors are just as important and could bring forth all sorts of gems. But following their lines will be a different exercise that I will attempt in the future, and will produce a different tree. Not better, nor inferior, just different.

[ludovica]

From "Blood Royal"~ Iain Moncrieffe & Don Pottinger :~ Nelson &Sons 1956

"All the hundred Peers of England and all the eighty five Peers of Scotland are descended from the Queens English or Scottish ancestors, the Plantagenet or Stuart Kings. Most can also trace their Royal Blood in the female line
 Younger branches of all these families merge imperceptibly with the nation. With the passage of centuries, the WHOLE population is ultimately related to the Blood Royal.. and thus to the Sovereign"


Considering the exponential nature of the number of ancestors per generation, and that it only takes a single connection to add all that connection's ancestors to one's own, I'd say it was a fair bet that that would eventually become obvious... IF DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN CREATED/PRESERVED!!

[ludovica]

Often following the male line is just a way of 'containing' the tree, so it doesnt get out of control. i'm talking the sort of tree that stats at the top with one person and then follows all branches downwards, and when you go back a generation you also find the siblings and again follow all branches downwards. Rather than the sort of tree that starts with one name at the bottom (yours) and goes back to parents, grandparents, grt grandparents etc.
The former style of tree needs to concentrate on one surname, otherwise it would be totally unmanageable, and thus only follows the male line, girls once married are not followed up.
I dont see this as a problem. This is what I have done for many years on my Edmonds's. I recognise the girls are just as important genetically. I recognise that their offspring/ancsetors are just as important and could bring forth all sorts of gems. But following their lines will be a different exercise that I will attempt in the future, and will produce a different tree. Not better, nor inferior, just different.

I did both types simultaneously.... All the descendents of my earliest Paternal ancestor.. (in effect, an ONS) plus an inclusive search for ancestors.

It's not unmanageable with good software actually. I am blessed with a pretty good memory as well which is a definite bonus

[ludovica]

Edward I only makes it on mine as 23x gt granduncle as I am descended from Edmund Crouchback

I've got Edmund as well. He is my 23xgreat grandfather.

Howdy Cousin!